The conclusions? According to an investigation by the 1st Air Cavalry Brigade (.pdf) , the aircrew "accurately assessed that the criteria to find and terminate the threat to friendly forces were met in accordance with the law of armed conflict and rules of engagement." The report concluded that the attack helicopters positively identified the threat, established hostile intent, conducted appropriate collateral damage assessment and received clearance to fire.

What's more, the military indirectly blamed the reporters for being in the company of "armed insurgents" and making no effort to identify themselves as journalists. An investigating officer with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team (BCT), 2nd Infantry Division, concluded that "the cameramen made no effort to visibly display their status as press (.pdf) or media representatives" and added that "their familiar behavior with, and close proximity to, the armed insurgents and their furtive attempts to photograph the Coalition Ground Forces made them appear as hostile combatants to the Apaches that engaged them." A long telephoto lens, the officer says, could have been mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade.

It's also clear, however, that the military quickly figured out that they had inadvertently killed two Reuters employees, and that two children had been seriously wounded in the incident. During "sensitive site exploitation," members of the ground unit recovered cameras and media cards from the scene, and were able to identify pictures shot by a Reuters employee at a coalition news conference.

This is hardly the end of the controversy. WikiLeaks has forwarded its own interpretation of the decrypted video footage, based in part by an on-the-ground investigation that two volunteers conducted in Baghdad. And the reports do not explain the military's lag in releasing information to Reuters, which had filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain gunsight video shot by the Apache attack helicopters and other incident reports.

Other questions remain about the rules of engagement, and the remedial action the military might have taken to prevent such incidents in the future. A section on "recommendations" in the air cavalry investigation is blacked out. And the 2nd BCT's investigating officer – who reviewed a copy of the gun camera footage – said that the video viewed in real time by the pilots is not the same as that scrutinized later by investigators. "It must be noted that details which are readily apparent when viewed on a large video monitor are not necessarily apparent to the Apache pilots during a live-fire engagement," the officer writes. "First of all, the pilots are viewing the scene on a much smaller screen than I had for my review. Secondly, a pilot's primary concern is with flying his helicopter and the safety of his aircraft."

The Apache attack helicopters involved in the incident are identified as Crazy Horse 18 and 19, of the 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment. The names of pilots, as well as those of investigating officials, were redacted in the Central Command report. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, who reviewed the findings, ordered that "members of the press be encouraged to wear identifying vests or distinctive body armor within the MND-B AOR," or Multi-National Division-Baghdad area of responsibility, although he directed that such action be "passed to PAO [public affairs office] for coordination through CPIC [Coalition Press Information Center]."

A recommendation was also made for a condolence payment to the families of the two children injured in the attack. According to WikiLeaks, no such payment was ever made.